Click here to view the actual diagram
10. You have NO LEGAL RIGHT to the PNC since you sold it and were paid in cash, property, etc.
11. The Bank can do what they want with the PN since they bought it and have paid you; ‘res judicata’
12. The Bank has failed to ‘Specifically Perform’ and give you the loan you are paying for.
13. You failed to notify the Bank of the Banks failure, so you must be ok with not receiving the loan.
14. If you sue the Bank for not giving you the money for the loan- they must prove they did give you
said money; but then they can’t prove they bought the PN; so why did they sell the PN?
Defendants used the money Defendants’ received from Defendants’ sale of Plaintiff’s check/Promissory Note to fraudulently encumber Plaintiff’s real Property by claiming said money paid to the third party(s) was Defendants’ money.
Thus, Defendants’ encumbrances on Plaintiff’s real Property are prima facie evidence of Defendants’ fraud as it is a functional impossibility for the sum of the check/Promissory Note to be used twice against Plaintiff.
More simply stated:
a. Plaintiff sold a Promissory Note to Defendants.
b. Defendants then re-sold said Promissory Note yet still failed to pay Plaintiff.
c. Defendants unlawfully used the money Defendants should have paid Plaintiff to purchase specific debts.
d. Defendants’ purchased said debts in Defendants name instead of Plaintiff’s name.
e. Defendants used said purchase to transfer the lien rights on Plaintiff’s real Property from the third party to Defendants.
i) Defendants used Plaintiff’s money to buy the lien under Defendants name so as to put the lien in Defendants name instead of removing said lien.
ii) Such criminal act is known in law as fraudulent conversion.
f. Defendant then unlawfully claimed encumbrances on Plaintiff’s real Property for the debts paid off in Defendants’ name with Plaintiff’s money.
g. Defendants’ then used ‘legalese’ to trick Plaintiff into believing that Defendants’had given Plaintiff a “LOAN.”
h. Plaintiff made monthly payments on said “LOAN” until such a time as Plaintiff discovered material facts evidencing Defendants fraudulent and criminal acts.
i. Plaintiff discovered that Defendants used the money from the sale of the Promissory Note; and NOT the money from any “LOAN;” to pay off the aforementioned debts.
j. It is a functional impossibility for the “LOAN” to have occurred as such would require the same exact money to be spent twice, once for the purchase of the liens and once to be given to Plaintiff as a “LOAN.”
i) The purchase of the lien(s) did occur; therefore the “LOAN” could not have occurred.
ii) For the “LOAN” to occur, then the lien purchase by Defendants could have not occurred.
k. To date, Plaintiff has still NOT received the “LOAN” promised by Defendants.
l. Plaintiff has been financially devastated by Defendants’ failure to supply the “LOAN” Plaintiff has paid several months on, and is still waiting to receive.
m. Defendants knowingly, intelligently and willfully created the previous scenario to defraud Plaintiff and millions of other Americans in a far reaching conspiracy to overthrow the government of the United States and unlawfully steal land from Americans in the single largest act of conspiratory terrorism in the history of the world as evidenced by the man that created the concept almost one hundred years ago: